BraveNewCheneyWorld:Serious Black: Would you care to respond to my question of whether gay people should be treated legally the same as straight people in terms of being able to have consensual sexual relations, get married to each other, and work without fear of being fired for who they love and who they are married to?

They should be able to have relationships. They shouldn't be able to get married. They shouldn't have to worry about being fired.

The Italian Farker: Exactly, I point out that the word "Disapproval" is actually a synonym for "Aversion" listed under the Merriam-Webster thesaurus page and all he can say in reply is.

I'm sorry you don't realize how much you suck at English. Can a person disapprove of drugs, while being able to tolerate being around them? Yes, yes they can, and that means that "aversion" as its relevant use, is not applicable.

Well I would rather suck at English than have to take a word that has more than one meaning and only use the meaning that seems appropriate and ignore the other ones because they might contradict his point.

Again, the word "homophobia" in 2013 does not refer to a phobia, per se. It once did, and the word originates from psychology and phobia texts, but it's long since stopped being a medical term. It's really startling how clueless the anti-gay bigots continue to be when faced with the 21st Century.

Dumbasses. Stop trying to talk like adults. You can argue semantics, but unless you have a good reason to disapprove of homosexuality, then it's irrational, and yes, according to the dictionary in 2013, you are indeed a homophone. That's the meaning of the word.

Sorry you can't grasp all these changes going on around you.

If you just don't like gays because they weird you out or make you feel gross, that's irrational. That's homophobia.

What's a rational reason for disapproving of it, exactly, that doesn't involve a magic book?

keenerb:I guess it's like my distaste for a lot of things. I just don't care for it, I don't participate in it, seeing two dudes making out at the mall kind of repulses me. I dislike baseball in pretty much the exact same way, except for the making out part. I also want grandkids that are my actual flesh and blood.

But realistically, someone being gay doesn't bother me in the least. It's like someone liking peanut butter and banana sandwiches, or being buddhist; it's not my business, it doesn't affect me, and gay people have every right to do their own thing as much as any other living human being on the planet.

In the scouts, I never thought "hey this kid is being picked on for being gay" it was always simply "hey this kid is being picked on."

Maybe it's some subconscious variation on that idiotic "hate the sin but not the sinner" concept, but not in a religious sense. My church is cool with gay people, even.

That's not disapproval. The sight makes you squeamish. A spider hanging out in my shower makes me a little squeamish but it does not mean I disapprove of spiders. In the sex realm I find the trend of porn inevitably ending up with the dude busting a nut all over a chick's face to be repulsive but I do not disapprove if that's what people like or if that's how the actor's have chosen to make money.

Your other point about grandchildren... well you just want grandchildren. That is standard biology in the sense you want your bloodline to continue. However if anything else you said is true then you would not shun your children if they ended up being gay. If you did though then that would be disapproval and rather dickish.

And you do know that gay folks can have their own biological children, right? Whether through sucking it up and doing the nasty with the opposite sex solely for procreation or ala turkey baster it would still produce a biological grandchild so technically that should not be an issue at all.

Now how about if your kids are straight and decided to adopt how would you feel?

Confabulat:BraveNewCheneyWorld: They should be able to have relationships. They shouldn't be able to get married. They shouldn't have to worry about being fired.

Why shouldn't they be able to get married? Be very specific in your answer.

After you people have shown that you're willing to continuously lie about the meaning of a word in an effort to sway an argument in your favor, why would I do that? Why should I believe that you'll begin debating honestly now?

letrole:Tolerance does not equal AcceptanceIt is more than a bit disingenuous to claim moral superiority because you accept or approve of something."Oh yeah, I think the things that I like are just nifty, and that makes me a good person", as it were.The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do. The amusing thing is that these posters don't view themselves as bigots -- they consider themselves quite open-minded.

jso2897:Trolling is learned behavior.

There is no troll here, except for the way that you've jumped up unbidden and barked a word that is now meaningless -- due to the way that dumbasses bark it out with no justification.

Which incidentally is the drift of the thread now in which 'phobia' does not mean 'phobia' unless it means 'phobia', or perhaps just means phobia, or some such revisionist shiat.

It's one thing to condemn gay bashing, it's another to heretically put words into God's mouth. Listening to Satan when he said "God didnt REALLY say that" was humanity's original sin. A priest should know better, let alone an archbishop.

STRYPERSWINE:It's one thing to condemn gay bashing, it's another to heretically put words into God's mouth. Listening to Satan when he said "God didnt REALLY say that" was humanity's original sin. A priest should know better, let alone an archbishop.

Funny that an Archbishop DID say that. One might think he might know the word of God better than some folks who seem to forget that there is more to The Bible than Leviticus...

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Confabulat: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They should be able to have relationships. They shouldn't be able to get married. They shouldn't have to worry about being fired.

Why shouldn't they be able to get married? Be very specific in your answer.

After you people have shown that you're willing to continuously lie about the meaning of a word in an effort to sway an argument in your favor, why would I do that? Why should I believe that you'll begin debating honestly now?

Ha, I'm more interesting in the overall issue than the pedestry of a word. Can you not tell me your opinions about the subject, or do you prefer to argue proper English?

STRYPERSWINE:It's one thing to condemn gay bashing, it's another to heretically put words into God's mouth. Listening to Satan when he said "God didnt REALLY say that" was humanity's original sin. A priest should know better, let alone an archbishop.

Please. I am interested in hearing which Divinity school you did your studies at to correct the formerArchbishop. Enlighten us, please. Dazzle us with your knowledge, you crazy, shining, diamond of Ecclesiastical Studies...

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Hickory-smoked: If it just means you don't like having sex with men, then I think your disagreement is 100% supported by everyone across the political spectrum. If you mean you "disagree" with other men or women who think they have the right to consensually love each other, then you're an asshole. There's no other way to put it.

There are people who don't like to use heroin, but think it should be legal, and there are people who don't use heroin and think it should be illegal. Neither one of those groups is necessarily being led by hatred or bigotry, and neither one is inherently an "asshole" because of the views they hold. It's a shame that you can't see how your logic would (not) apply to many similar consensual activities. How can you claim to be fighting for tolerance, when you are intolerant of those who do nothing more than disagree?

First, it isn't bigotry to dislike bigots. Don't be stupid.

Second, you are an asshole troll. Your views are that of an asshole Your distraction of how big an asshole you are via dictionary games is that of a troll.

If you weren't, your initial comment here would be 'I don't like the changing of language over time'. But of course you couldn't do that. Why? Because asshole trolls are gonna be asshole troll.

Confabulat:Ha, I'm more interesting in the overall issue than the pedestry of a word. Can you not tell me your opinions about the subject, or do you prefer to argue proper English?

Yeah.. I can tell...

Confabulat:Again, the word "homophobia" in 2013 does not refer to a phobia, per se. It once did, and the word originates from psychology and phobia texts, but it's long since stopped being a medical term. It's really startling how clueless the anti-gay bigots continue to be when faced with the 21st Century.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Hickory-smoked: If it just means you don't like having sex with men, then I think your disagreement is 100% supported by everyone across the political spectrum. If you mean you "disagree" with other men or women who think they have the right to consensually love each other, then you're an asshole. There's no other way to put it.

There are people who don't like to use heroin, but think it should be legal, and there are people who don't use heroin and think it should be illegal. Neither one of those groups is necessarily being led by hatred or bigotry, and neither one is inherently an "asshole" because of the views they hold. It's a shame that you can't see how your logic would (not) apply to many similar consensual activities. How can you claim to be fighting for tolerance, when you are intolerant of those who do nothing more than disagree?

An interesting (if flawed) perspective, but since I believe your entire persona is a deliberate performance, I'm not going to waste any time with it.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Confabulat: Ha, I'm more interesting in the overall issue than the pedestry of a word. Can you not tell me your opinions about the subject, or do you prefer to argue proper English?

Yeah.. I can tell...

Confabulat: Again, the word "homophobia" in 2013 does not refer to a phobia, per se. It once did, and the word originates from psychology and phobia texts, but it's long since stopped being a medical term. It's really startling how clueless the anti-gay bigots continue to be when faced with the 21st Century.

Smackledorfer: First, it isn't bigotry to dislike bigots.

It's also not bigotry if I don't like everything about you. FFS you're dense.

No I'm not, in fact you're just a libelous douche, or bigot is yet another word that you need to look up in the dictionary. Take your pick, but it's one of the two.

Also, you are a bigot yourself..

: a person who is or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

It's not enough for you that I leave gay people alone. I must love everything they do, and think they are good and wonderful at all times, or I'm bigoted according to you, which actually makes you the bigot.

The original idea for the coining of the word homophobia ie that it was fear of homosexuality that caused normal people to disapprove -- well that's just dumb, but it's still the original idea behind the coinage.

It's not unlike the class dweeb comforting himself by pretending that he gets abused by everyone simply because everyone else is jealous of him -- "Oh, they're just jealous of me... Oh, they just fear homosexuals..."

So here it is 2013, and rather than coin a new word that means something else more appropriate, the push is to redefine phobia to mean something other than fear.

Well good farking luck on that. And whatever you do, don't dwell on the fact that it was muddled thinking that got everything wrong in the first place.

Fano:taurusowner: Confabulat: And I looked up "homophobia" in Merriam-Webster just out of curiosity:

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.So if you disapprove of homosexuality, how are you not homophobic, exactly? Do you have a rational reason?

Well a big reason would be that a "phobia" is a medical condition pertaining specifically to fear with the accompanying physical syptoms. Disagreeing with something is not.

Paris1127:[news.bbcimg.co.uk image 464x495]Morocco, Western Sahara, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are apparently not a part of Africa... Nor are the island nations generally listed as part of Africa (Madagascar, Comoros, etc).

STRYPERSWINE:It's one thing to condemn gay bashing, it's another to heretically put words into God's mouth. Listening to Satan when he said "God didnt REALLY say that" was humanity's original sin. A priest should know better, let alone an archbishop.

Yeah, but the fundamentalists never listen when you try to tell them that.

letrole:I think it's time to clear the air on all this phobia horseshiat.

The original idea for the coining of the word homophobia ie that it was fear of homosexuality that caused normal people to disapprove -- well that's just dumb, but it's still the original idea behind the coinage.

It's not unlike the class dweeb comforting himself by pretending that he gets abused by everyone simply because everyone else is jealous of him -- "Oh, they're just jealous of me... Oh, they just fear homosexuals..."

So here it is 2013, and rather than coin a new word that means something else more appropriate, the push is to redefine phobia to mean something other than fear.

Well good farking luck on that. And whatever you do, don't dwell on the fact that it was muddled thinking that got everything wrong in the first place.

I suggest the term contra-homo.

All very fascinating, I'm sure.

But let's move on to something of substance; what specific political or social ends do these "contra-homos" hope to accomplish... Either long term, or here in the year 2013?

ciberido:STRYPERSWINE: It's one thing to condemn gay bashing, it's another to heretically put words into God's mouth. Listening to Satan when he said "God didnt REALLY say that" was humanity's original sin. A priest should know better, let alone an archbishop.

Yeah, but the fundamentalists never listen when you try to tell them that.

Well, there are 75 OTHER things that Leviticus alone is down on, that folks don't seem to be all up in arms about...

1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)Not a huge problem nowadays.

2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)Again, not a huge deal to most Christian churches.

3. Eating fat (3:17)Southern cuisine is in trouble

4. Eating blood (3:17)German cuisine is in trouble.

5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've witnessed (5:1)Congress is in trouble.

6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've been told about (5:1)Congress is REALLY in trouble

7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)Hope you don't like pork...

8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)Again, Congress is REALLY in trouble

9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)HOAs are against God...

10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)Much of America is DOOMED...

15. Eating an animal which doesn't both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)Rib joints are the work of the Debbil...

16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)Hope you aren't a fan of football...

17. Eating - or touching the carcass of - any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)Red Lobster is the work of the Debbil...

18. Eating - or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)In fairness, this means that Newage folks are DOOOOOMED!

19. Eating - or touching the carcass of - flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)Cicadas may be out.

20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)Roof rabbit may have doomed the entire Greatest Generation...

21. Eating - or touching the carcass of - the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)Hope you haven't had gator bites...

22. Eating - or touching the carcass of - any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)Rattlesnake BBQ is RIGHT out...

23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)Hope you aren't having that Christening too early, you naughty folks...

24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)See the above, but double time for the girlchil'run...

25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)Which is not a bad rule to have, but let's face it, this rule pretty much takes out a good section of 90s day time TV

26. Having sex with your father's wife (18:8)Not a bad rule either, but see the above section on reality TV...

27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)This one is going to have Kentucky and good sections of the South, and Maine in trouble...

58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)The apple industry is the work of the Debbil...

59. Practicing divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)Miss Cleo is the work of the Debbil, and here we have this sin IN OUR PAPERS!

60. Trimming your beard (19:27)Look at all the dirty bastiches who do this. LOOK AT THEM!

61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)The Marines are the work of the Debbil...

62. Getting tattoos (19:28)Tramp stamps and memorial tattoos are the work of the Debbil...

63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)Daytime TV is SUCH a sinful place...

64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)Miss Cleo. Leading a nation into sin and depravity...

65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)Welp, this one seems right out today...

66. Mistreating foreigners - "the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born" (19:33-34)Guess that means we can stop those Oathkeepers and Sheriff Joe from being mean to the immigrants then, right? Border fences are the Debbil's chopsticks I guess...

67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)My industry is boned as a whole, as is pretty much most of the oil industry as well...

68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)Maury and the rest could have made a few bucks by televising the stonings though...

69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)Odd, that you don't see more folks incensed by this...

70. Entering a place where there's a dead body as a priest (21:11)Which pretty much means that all our chaplains are boned.

71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)And in fairness, it's rude too. Eating mama and her babies is just greedy...

72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)Sadly, this means no liquor stores open on Saturday or Sunday...

73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)Man, we are going to need a LOT of stones. Just in the State legislatures, and let's not even get onto Congress...

74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else's animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)This WOULD end cockfighting and dogfighting quick though...

75. Selling land permanently (25:23)Odd, you don't see more protests and signs around real estate agencies...

76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)So, I guess we should be OK with slaves again?

So, STRYPERSWINE, do you think that those folks who know better than an Archbishop should be equally upset about these? Please. Do tell us. Please.

There are other books that prohibit it besides Leviticus. For me, Romans 1 is why I can't support gay marriage, but Romans 13 is why I won't oppose it (because love does no harm to it's neighbor). But let's not pretend that God is in favor of it.

/Christian a education major, Biblical studies minor//not that it matters. The text is plain.

STRYPERSWINE:There are other books that prohibit it besides Leviticus. For me, Romans 1 is why I can't support gay marriage, but Romans 13 is why I won't oppose it (because love does no harm to it's neighbor). But let's not pretend that God is in favor of it.

/Christian a education major, Biblical studies minor//not that it matters. The text is plain.

You didn't answer the question of why THIS issue is so important, but the OTHER 75 are just "meh." Please. go on.

STRYPERSWINE:There are other books that prohibit it besides Leviticus. For me, Romans 1 is why I can't support gay marriage, but Romans 13 is why I won't oppose it (because love does no harm to it's neighbor). But let's not pretend that God is in favor of it.

/Christian a education major, Biblical studies minor//not that it matters. The text is plain.

Why would god make some people (and animals) gay if he didn't want them to act on it? Did they win the pre-birth lottery to do life on the hard setting with extra sins and temptations to fight against? Or is God such an asshole that he made some people naturally designed to sin just for fun?

jchuffyman:STRYPERSWINE: There are other books that prohibit it besides Leviticus. For me, Romans 1 is why I can't support gay marriage, but Romans 13 is why I won't oppose it (because love does no harm to it's neighbor). But let's not pretend that God is in favor of it.

/Christian a education major, Biblical studies minor//not that it matters. The text is plain.

Why would god make some people (and animals) gay if he didn't want them to act on it? Did they win the pre-birth lottery to do life on the hard setting with extra sins and temptations to fight against? Or is God such an asshole that he made some people naturally designed to sin just for fun?

/"homosexuality is a choice" is not a valid respone

I am with tutu. But then I say the same regarding hell. I will never willingly worship something so powerful that it creates life while being knowing enough to see what those lives will do, and then demands worship on pain of eternal damnation.

Smackledorfer:jchuffyman: STRYPERSWINE: There are other books that prohibit it besides Leviticus. For me, Romans 1 is why I can't support gay marriage, but Romans 13 is why I won't oppose it (because love does no harm to it's neighbor). But let's not pretend that God is in favor of it.

/Christian a education major, Biblical studies minor//not that it matters. The text is plain.

Why would god make some people (and animals) gay if he didn't want them to act on it? Did they win the pre-birth lottery to do life on the hard setting with extra sins and temptations to fight against? Or is God such an asshole that he made some people naturally designed to sin just for fun?

/"homosexuality is a choice" is not a valid respone

I am with tutu. But then I say the same regarding hell. I will never willingly worship something so powerful that it creates life while being knowing enough to see what those lives will do, and then demands worship on pain of eternal damnation.

That and the complete lack of convincing evidence such a god exists.

Of course. I'm not religious. And that is one of the reasons why. If you assume God exists for the sake of argument, you pretty much have to conclude that that being is evil and not worthy of being worshiped.

hubiestubert:Well, there are 75 OTHER things that Leviticus alone is down on, that folks don't seem to be all up in arms about...

Yes, but they're not going to do anything about them because nobody's out there campaigning against them. I mean when was the last time you saw a "Tattoo Pride" parade? They're specifically up in arms about "gay marriage" because they view it as a direct attack on one of their sacred institutions. Leviticus is the most obvious "prohibition" about it, but there are other sections that don't exactly look kindly to it (I believe STRYPERSWINE may have been referring to Romans 1:18-27 before).

Actually, STRYPERSWINE, if you're still here can I ask you something? I was reading somewhere that the coming of Jesus was meant to "nullify" the civil and ceremonial laws as laid down in Leviticus (but not the moral laws i.e. Ten Commandments - nobody gets out of those) so the Christians that came after him didn't have to follow them. Is that accurate?

ALL of us are born with inclination towards different sins. Christianity doesn't require gentile believers to become Jews but homosexuality isn't only mentioned in Leviticus. Live and let live, but don't pretend that God is ok with it. Tutu should know better.

Violent crime in South Africa affects me in northern Europe? (the example was lifted verbatim from TFA)

Anyway, I never intended that post to be taken that seriously. It was just an example that people have opinions on things that don't affect them all the time, and I picked this one because people agree pretty universally that everyone is supposed to care about these kinds of things. Even if it is so far away that the occurrence might as well have been a work of fiction for all the influence it has on our daily life.

STRYPERSWINE:ALL of us are born with inclination towards different sins. Christianity doesn't require gentile believers to become Jews but homosexuality isn't only mentioned in Leviticus. Live and let live, but don't pretend that God is ok with it. Tutu should know better.

STRYPERSWINE:ALL of us are born with inclination towards different sins. Christianity doesn't require gentile believers to become Jews but homosexuality isn't only mentioned in Leviticus. Live and let live, but don't pretend that God is ok with it. Tutu should know better.

STRYPERSWINE:ALL of us are born with inclination towards different sins. Christianity doesn't require gentile believers to become Jews but homosexuality isn't only mentioned in Leviticus. Live and let live, but don't pretend that God is ok with it. Tutu should know better.

It is a pretty ballsy assumption to make to say that everyone has an equal set of hurdles in front of them. Also afaict complete rubbish. This is why people dislike the religious: they pretty much just make up whatever they want, preach it as truth, but get upset at anyone else who does the same.

Shedim:hubiestubert: Well, there are 75 OTHER things that Leviticus alone is down on, that folks don't seem to be all up in arms about...

Yes, but they're not going to do anything about them because nobody's out there campaigning against them. I mean when was the last time you saw a "Tattoo Pride" parade? They're specifically up in arms about "gay marriage" because they view it as a direct attack on one of their sacred institutions. Leviticus is the most obvious "prohibition" about it, but there are other sections that don't exactly look kindly to it (I believe STRYPERSWINE may have been referring to Romans 1:18-27 before).

Actually, STRYPERSWINE, if you're still here can I ask you something? I was reading somewhere that the coming of Jesus was meant to "nullify" the civil and ceremonial laws as laid down in Leviticus (but not the moral laws i.e. Ten Commandments - nobody gets out of those) so the Christians that came after him didn't have to follow them. Is that accurate?

I know you didn't ask me, but I can answer for you. Short answer - depends entirely on which branch of Christianity you're talking about. I forget where exactly, but somewhere Jesus basically says he did not come to replace the laws. So, some groups point to that and say ALL the laws are still needed. On the other end, some say Jesus replaced all of them - I know of at least one school of theology that Jesus dying on the cross removed original sin as well, rendering most of the laws unnecessary(as well as baptism and a few other things). Then you can find things on pretty much any point of the spectrum between the two.

Please, please, please - stop using the word homophobic. No one is afraid of homosexuals - except maybe a few Catholic alterboys.

We are not afraid of them - as the word implies. So the word is insulting each time I hear it. I am not a homosexual and I do not fear them. I fully support their right to happily and joyfully find partners and marry. They should have partner rights. I appreciate the fact that we are different and feel that it is important to allow them all of the freedoms granted to heterosexuals.

But, the sight of of two guys making out turns my stomach a bit. The thought of one pounding another's anal cavity is quite unpleasant to me. Not too distant from beastiality or other perversions (just my perception of it).

Now - why do people fail to accept homosexuality?

My only experience with the "sex" part of homosexuality was when several younger boy scouts in my patrol were molested by an older scout - quite a few years older than the youngest scouts and in a leadership position. They were young, barely pubescent teens - now grown men with families. He knew how to use straight porn to get them aroused and then would molest them. I was responsible for them as their patrol leader, and the whole mess really pissed me off. That, and tales of the high school drama teacher molesting the kid who lived across the street and my friends who went to Catholic boarding schools having to quickly learn to avoid certain teachers, etc. A bit of a theme developed. And this is limited exposure is shared amongst many of my straight adult friends. Interaction with gay folks in the teen years was often a bit traumatic.

Now examine this from a religious point of view. I grew up Southern Baptist. They did not allow African-Americans in their churches. They would not perform mixed race weddings. They would not allow dancing at church functions. It was an atmosphere where people revelled in the discussions of the weaknesses of others. Piety and criticism of those of other faiths and other lifestyles was encouraged. I now understand that religions are scams to manipulate the masses, but it is quite clear that the teachings of the church prohibit homosexuality.

The solution? Do not worry about what religions think about homosexuality. It really doesn't matter. Support gay rights, and abandon religion. I really think that if an older gay teen is free to establish a relationship with another gay guy, he'll get all the sex he needs and not molest the little boys in his boy scout troop. Freedom to practice the sexual impulses with which we are genetically programmed will reduce the number folks who have to deny their sexual preferences to their friends, families, and their governments. There will be fewer "closeted" gay guys who sneak off to Atlanta for a weekend and participate in high risk sexual activity. They will be free to establish long-term relationships, practice monogamy, and focus on the relationship, not sex - just like the hetero couples.

So those of us who are not gay may have reasons to be a bit cautious, or even object based on the errant religious beliefs we were taught from childhood. But we're not afraid of gay people. Homophobic is the wrong word.

MerelyFoolish:Please, please, please - stop using the word homophobic. No one is afraid of homosexuals - except maybe a few Catholic alterboys.

We are not afraid of them - as the word implies. So the word is insulting each time I hear it. I am not a homosexual and I do not fear them. I fully support their right to happily and joyfully find partners and marry. They should have partner rights. I appreciate the fact that we are different and feel that it is important to allow them all of the freedoms granted to heterosexuals.

With attitude like that, no one should be calling you homophobic. There's a major difference between "I personally don't like it but they should have all the same rights," and "Gays are icky and shouldn't get married because (fake) reasons."

That being said, if people are calling you homophobic, it calls for a Jon-Stewart-You're-Not-Helping type thing.

Anyone insulted by the word should get off their cross and wonder why other people find them obnoxiously rude.

I don't care what you do with your dick, and I don't spend my time bringing up any disgust I may or may not have with how you use it.

You, on the other hand, feel the need to get upset at the changing of language over time and then follow it up with telling them that they are revolting. Yet you call for others to change the language they use to suit you? If you cannot simply say "I support gay rights" without following it up with a dozen different 'buts' then go fark yourself.

MerelyFoolish:So those of us who are not gay may have reasons to be a bit cautious

They may be reasons, but they are not valid reasons. Especially the idea that rapists wouldn't rape if they had easier access to the hole of their choosing.

grumpfuff:MerelyFoolish: Please, please, please - stop using the word homophobic. No one is afraid of homosexuals - except maybe a few Catholic alterboys.

We are not afraid of them - as the word implies. So the word is insulting each time I hear it. I am not a homosexual and I do not fear them. I fully support their right to happily and joyfully find partners and marry. They should have partner rights. I appreciate the fact that we are different and feel that it is important to allow them all of the freedoms granted to heterosexuals.

With attitude like that, no one should be calling you homophobic. There's a major difference between "I personally don't like it but they should have all the same rights," and "Gays are icky and shouldn't get married because (fake) reasons."

That being said, if people are calling you homophobic, it calls for a Jon-Stewart-You're-Not-Helping type thing.

Aside from changing usage of the word as has been thoroughly covered including dictionary definitions which would apply to his views of gays so much as kissing, the reason he is called a homophobe is because he seems to go through the day actively complaining about gays and then paying lip service to their rights.

Smackledorfer:grumpfuff: MerelyFoolish: Please, please, please - stop using the word homophobic. No one is afraid of homosexuals - except maybe a few Catholic alterboys.

We are not afraid of them - as the word implies. So the word is insulting each time I hear it. I am not a homosexual and I do not fear them. I fully support their right to happily and joyfully find partners and marry. They should have partner rights. I appreciate the fact that we are different and feel that it is important to allow them all of the freedoms granted to heterosexuals.

With attitude like that, no one should be calling you homophobic. There's a major difference between "I personally don't like it but they should have all the same rights," and "Gays are icky and shouldn't get married because (fake) reasons."

That being said, if people are calling you homophobic, it calls for a Jon-Stewart-You're-Not-Helping type thing.

Aside from changing usage of the word as has been thoroughly covered including dictionary definitions which would apply to his views of gays so much as kissing, the reason he is called a homophobe is because he seems to go through the day actively complaining about gays and then paying lip service to their rights.

Meh, I admit I only gave his post a quick read. If what you say is true..yea, homophobe. Own it, buddy.

Just like Cheney "I don't like gays but I'm not a homophobe because reasons" World up thread.

grumpfuff:Smackledorfer: grumpfuff: MerelyFoolish: Please, please, please - stop using the word homophobic. No one is afraid of homosexuals - except maybe a few Catholic alterboys.

We are not afraid of them - as the word implies. So the word is insulting each time I hear it. I am not a homosexual and I do not fear them. I fully support their right to happily and joyfully find partners and marry. They should have partner rights. I appreciate the fact that we are different and feel that it is important to allow them all of the freedoms granted to heterosexuals.

With attitude like that, no one should be calling you homophobic. There's a major difference between "I personally don't like it but they should have all the same rights," and "Gays are icky and shouldn't get married because (fake) reasons."

That being said, if people are calling you homophobic, it calls for a Jon-Stewart-You're-Not-Helping type thing.

Aside from changing usage of the word as has been thoroughly covered including dictionary definitions which would apply to his views of gays so much as kissing, the reason he is called a homophobe is because he seems to go through the day actively complaining about gays and then paying lip service to their rights.

Meh, I admit I only gave his post a quick read. If what you say is true..yea, homophobe. Own it, buddy.

Just like Cheney "I don't like gays but I'm not a homophobe because reasons" World up thread.

Yeah, because saying I don't approve of homosexuality is exactly the same as beating a homosexual to death with a baseball bat. Interesting how you people insist in making this all about hatred, when we repeatedly tell you that hatred doesn't exist here. Sorry to godwin the thread, but you're taking a page out of someone's playbook.

grumpfuff:I know you didn't ask me, but I can answer for you. Short answer - depends entirely on which branch of Christianity you're talking about. I forget where exactly, but somewhere Jesus basically says he did not come to replace the laws. So, some groups point to that and say ALL the laws are still needed. On the other end, some say Jesus replaced all of them - I know of at least one school of theology that Jesus dying on the cross removed original sin as well, rendering most of the laws unnecessary(as well as baptism and a few other things). Then you can find things on pretty much any point of the spectrum between the two.

So yea..basically...it depends?

Thanks for answering. I read about it from here and I just wanted to get another source. I was only half-expecting STRYPWERSWINE to answer me (or even acknowledge they'd read my query in the first place).

I'm surprised at how many people are using argumentum ad dictionarium in this thread. Maybe it's the only "argument" they feel they have left...

BraveNewCheneyWorld:grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: grumpfuff: MerelyFoolish: Please, please, please - stop using the word homophobic. No one is afraid of homosexuals - except maybe a few Catholic alterboys.

We are not afraid of them - as the word implies. So the word is insulting each time I hear it. I am not a homosexual and I do not fear them. I fully support their right to happily and joyfully find partners and marry. They should have partner rights. I appreciate the fact that we are different and feel that it is important to allow them all of the freedoms granted to heterosexuals.

With attitude like that, no one should be calling you homophobic. There's a major difference between "I personally don't like it but they should have all the same rights," and "Gays are icky and shouldn't get married because (fake) reasons."

That being said, if people are calling you homophobic, it calls for a Jon-Stewart-You're-Not-Helping type thing.

Aside from changing usage of the word as has been thoroughly covered including dictionary definitions which would apply to his views of gays so much as kissing, the reason he is called a homophobe is because he seems to go through the day actively complaining about gays and then paying lip service to their rights.

Meh, I admit I only gave his post a quick read. If what you say is true..yea, homophobe. Own it, buddy.

Just like Cheney "I don't like gays but I'm not a homophobe because reasons" World up thread.

Yeah, because saying I don't approve of homosexuality is exactly the same as beating a homosexual to death with a baseball bat. Interesting how you people insist in making this all about hatred, when we repeatedly tell you that hatred doesn't exist here. Sorry to godwin the thread, but you're taking a page out of someone's playbook.

"Hate is more lasting than dislike" - Adolph Hitler

When you give an actual reason for a LEGITIMATE reason for disapproving of homosexuality, then I will gladly admit to being wrong and retract my accusation. And to be honest, I don't hate you. If anything, I feel sorry for you. You might be a great guy overall in real life. Here's a hint. Calling you a homophobe does not mean I hate you.